Our solar system has 8 planets; chemistry says an atom can only support 8 valence orbits.

Re: Our solar system has 8 planets; chemistry says an atom can only support 8 valence orbits.

These topics have been discussed alot, but quite naturally it is to my understanding that the planetary systems are the same physics as atoms.

I think they can answer alot of questions about atoms by simply taking our own solar systems calculations and physical properties and laws and applying it to the questions we have about the atomic level.

Quoting: What is close is father away 17857763

not even close. do you seriously think the electrons all orbit on the same plane?. You have objects reacting to electrostatic forces and want to compare macro objects reacting to gravity as equivalents?Don't know what you been smoking but shit that good is supposed to be shared dufus.

Quoting: Kirk

What is gravity then you astro-bully?

"You will not be punished for your anger, you will be punished by your anger"

Re: Our solar system has 8 planets; chemistry says an atom can only support 8 valence orbits.

Mercury should be classified as a Moon. It looks just like any moon in the Solar System.

That will give us 8.

If Pluto can be downgraded, then so can Mercury.

Quoting: Phase-Sphere

Not really....

The first energy level of an element holds 2 electrons... In this case mercury and venus... The next energy level can hold 8.. If you count pluto that gives us 9 total electrons/planets... 2 in the first energy level and 7 in the second energy level....meaning we need one electron/planet to complete our valence... Nibiru... That only works if you count pluto as a planet otherwise we would need two additional planets to complete our outer valence....

Re: Our solar system has 8 planets; chemistry says an atom can only support 8 valence orbits.

These topics have been discussed alot, but quite naturally it is to my understanding that the planetary systems are the same physics as atoms.

I think they can answer alot of questions about atoms by simply taking our own solar systems calculations and physical properties and laws and applying it to the questions we have about the atomic level.

Re: Our solar system has 8 planets; chemistry says an atom can only support 8 valence orbits.

I think they can answer alot of questions about atoms by simply taking our own solar systems calculations and physical properties and laws and applying it to the questions we have about the atomic level.

Quoting: What is close is father away 17857763

Sir, your idea is interesting. The small and the big are made of the same system...IN this latest crop circle (man-made or otherwise), which is enigmatic as usual , there are 8 circles following the "sun"... Further, I THINK IT'S NOT IMPORTANT WHICH ELEMENT OUR SOLAR SYSTEM REPRESENTS.

Re: Our solar system has 8 planets; chemistry says an atom can only support 8 valence orbits.

These topics have been discussed alot, but quite naturally it is to my understanding that the planetary systems are the same physics as atoms.

I think they can answer alot of questions about atoms by simply taking our own solar systems calculations and physical properties and laws and applying it to the questions we have about the atomic level.

Re: Our solar system has 8 planets; chemistry says an atom can only support 8 valence orbits.

the only problem with your theory is that electrons don't really "orbit" in a traditional/planetary sense

the electrons are in orbitals

what you are referring to as an "orbit" is really just the area of highest probability for that electron's location

the electron can (and does) move around

it can be in ANY location--not just the orbital

again, the orbital is just the area it is most likely going to be at any given time

does that make sense to you, OP?

when you understand that aspect of chemistry, you will realize that the similarity with the solar system is limited

also, only the outer orbital is called "valence"

Quoting: Anonymous Coward 664728

Right. Electrons are in a "cloud" and not really in orbit. I am taking chemistry in college right now and we just discussed this last week. Still I had a similar thought as OP last week. Not sure why the idea popped into my head but it did.

Re: Our solar system has 8 planets; chemistry says an atom can only support 8 valence orbits.

These topics have been discussed alot, but quite naturally it is to my understanding that the planetary systems are the same physics as atoms.

I think they can answer alot of questions about atoms by simply taking our own solar systems calculations and physical properties and laws and applying it to the questions we have about the atomic level.

Re: Our solar system has 8 planets; chemistry says an atom can only support 8 valence orbits.

the only problem with your theory is that electrons don't really "orbit" in a traditional/planetary sense

the electrons are in orbitals

what you are referring to as an "orbit" is really just the area of highest probability for that electron's location

the electron can (and does) move around

it can be in ANY location--not just the orbital

again, the orbital is just the area it is most likely going to be at any given time

does that make sense to you, OP?

when you understand that aspect of chemistry, you will realize that the similarity with the solar system is limited

also, only the outer orbital is called "valence"

Quoting: Anonymous Coward 664728

Right. Electrons are in a "cloud" and not really in orbit. I am taking chemistry in college right now and we just discussed this last week. Still I had a similar thought as OP last week. Not sure why the idea popped into my head but it did.

Quoting: Anonymous Coward 16922939

That's because even Chemistry doesn't understand atoms yet. Nor does physics (of which, chemistry is a subset). There is wisdom in this. Don't dismiss it!

Re: Our solar system has 8 planets; chemistry says an atom can only support 8 valence orbits.

I for one am pretty confident that in some way this could be true, allthough only speculation.One thing apparent to me is that this idea supports the holographic universe theory and string theory rather WELL.

The idea of a holographic universe is becoming more and more apparent and probable. Lots of research is pointing in this direction, that we indeed live in a holographic universe.

A holographic universe basicly means that reality isn't what we percieve, but only a projection of it. Matter is not really there, but is actually energy projected AS matter. In essence, vibrating at a lower frequency in order to be projected as matter. The solidity of matter is an illusion, but we percieve it as being solid because of the low frequency the energy uses to vibrate. It's like we can only see a small fraction of reality, which seems also pretty logical, because we can indeed only see a very small fraction of the entire frequency spectrum. More specifficly the lower end of the frequency spectrum, and matter is indeed projected on a lower frequency.

But more importantly, a hologram has one very peculliar characteristic : that every smaller part of the whole actually IS identical to the whole, no matter how infinitely big or small. It means that when you should take a small peace of the hologram, no matter how small, it will contain every bit of data to reconstruct the entire hologram from scratch. Look in terms of fractals and such: every smaller part contains the entire blueprint of the sum of it's parts, infinitely. And thus: "As above, so is below" becomes so very true. The very big and the very small are the same, and WORK the same, no matter how big or small you go. The fact that this applies infinitely, it should mean that our universe will keep on going infinitely big and infinitely small, and these patterns like atoms, molecules, living organisms, etc. keep on REPEATING in the same order, no matter how big or small you go.

Pertaining to OP's idea, this fits in earily well:

In our view the very big is the watchable universe, the very small are the atoms we study.As they are the same, we can hypothesize that stuff like our solar system actually are the same thing as atoms, and the universe some living cell or organism. So what we see as our universe must work the same way like atoms and molecules. So they must then have the same function also.

But how is this supposed to be percieved ?I personally think this should be viewed in terms of dimensions, and that would also explain and support the existence of more then three spacial dimensions, and fit in perfectly with what string theory suggests.

In our dimension, the planets, solar systems and galaxies are the very big and the atoms the very small. If you'd be able to travel to the next higher spacial dimension, things would switch around: the galaxies and solar systems would actually be the molecules and atoms in that dimension, and stuff like us and our earth what those atoms are composed of in turn. This also fits in perfectly with the fact that we know that our atoms contain even smaller bits, but we cannot detect them. Go the other way and you will conclude the exact same thing: we simply know the universe is way bigger than what we can see, but we cannot detect it.It is actually the next spacial dimension. It is so big in terms of dimensions, we are just too small to detect it's existence. That actually keeps on going infinitely, up and down. If you go smaller, you would ultimately end up in the spacial dimension that's below us, more specifficly the 2nd spacial dimension. Again it fits. The second dimension only contains of latitude and longitude, and mathematicly if you'd go infinitely small in 3 dimensions, you would indeed end up with a 3rd dimension becoming so big in relation to where you are, it would become non detectable, and from that point seemingly non existant. Same way if you go up: to us the 4th spacial dimension is non existant. We speculate it's existance but cannot proove it's existance. To us it is so big it is simply out of our grasp and view. Mathematicly this would again be true, if one would do the math, by going infinitely big eventually a 4th dimension would become apparent. In that way one could go up and down through the spacial dimensions, and find that literally the very big becomes the very small and vice versa.

So then we would all be part of an actual atom, and our universe some living thing way above us, and other living things being other universes from our point of view. They would also be part of an atom that would be part of even bigger organisms above them etc...And our cells and atoms would actually be the same things as our planets and galaxies, containing ppl and living things like us, and their atoms etc... This would explain in part why we cannot detect the dimensions above or below us. They are simply too big and small to detect or even comprehend.

Another indication that this actually could be true: look at gravity. It is known to be a very faint force. But (allthough not fully proven) it is widely debated that the force of gravity exerts its force all through the spacial dimensions from the top down. String theory suggests that our "realm" exists of 11 spacial dimensions, and so gravity would exert it's force from the 11th dimension down through the 10th, 9th, all the way through our 3rd dimension. At the top it would be a very strong force, and loose more power as it penetrates the lower dimensions. That explains the ongoing mystery as to WHY gravity is so faint. A couple years ago you could ask any scientist, they would all tell you that gravity is a much fainter force then it should be. But that was because they didn't take into account the existance of those higher spacial dimensions. The calculations didn't make sence and gravity was much fainter then it should be. Now with string theory, they realise that there has to be more dimensions to account for some things, like gravity being very faint. When calculated from an "11D" point of view the math seems to fit and things like faint gravity are all accounted for.That's one of the reasons why string theory has been catching on so quickly and drasticly. It accounts for a lot of "missing" stuff and things that cannot be explained otherwise. Only some time back string theory was still considered crazy, but now it is drasticly changing science as we know it, andmore and more scientists beginning to see truth in string theory. This above as below theory fits very well into string theory, and I wouldn't be surprised if in the future it is proven to be true, and our sun actually is the nucleus of an atom. Call me crazy now, but a prophet in a 100 years ;-)

This whole idea of atoms being planets and planets being atoms, is a something that has not yet been considered by scientists, probably because of how impossible it sounds, and just because this is so impossible to actually percieve and prove from within a 3D world, but I find it eary that the more you think about it, the more logical it would seem, considering other stuff like holograms, higher spacial dimensions, string theory and how it applies to the way energy projects itself through vibration, etc... When viewed like OP suggests, it all seems to fit in remarkably.

I wanted to put in some links here and there to support my opinions and claims, but I believe this post is long enough as is, and everything I mention is widely debated and information about it is easy to google. It is the accumulation of many many years of reading, studying and showing interest in astronomy, science and the unexplained. I just felt compelled to write this down and don't feel like googling for hours now and put a fitting link next to everything I say. I've done that allready for myself in the past.So for who wants to know more, or is sceptical without more details, please do your own research. It is the only way for any individual to acquire perspective over such matters, and to develop a method for thinking outside the box. Just google stuff like string theory, or "gravity should be stronger" or anything like that. There is tons of material to read there and all very intruiging.

Re: Our solar system has 8 planets; chemistry says an atom can only support 8 valence orbits.

These topics have been discussed alot, but quite naturally it is to my understanding that the planetary systems are the same physics as atoms.

I think they can answer alot of questions about atoms by simply taking our own solar systems calculations and physical properties and laws and applying it to the questions we have about the atomic level.

Quoting: What is close is father away 17857763

If you consider transdimensional travel, wouldnt physics, and our own perceptions of our environment, become obsolete?

It could be that our very senses are what deceive us.

And these senses are what hold us back from some serious cognitive expansion.

Why would the universe be limited by our perception of depth, space, time, and matter? It is our PERCEPTION that is a false premise we build our scientific theories upon; so wouldnt our entire approach be faulty?

We could start by going back to the drawing board, and removing perception, and every deritvative of science based upon it, from the equation.

Re: Our solar system has 8 planets; chemistry says an atom can only support 8 valence orbits.

These topics have been discussed alot, but quite naturally it is to my understanding that the planetary systems are the same physics as atoms.

I think they can answer alot of questions about atoms by simply taking our own solar systems calculations and physical properties and laws and applying it to the questions we have about the atomic level.

Re: Our solar system has 8 planets; chemistry says an atom can only support 8 valence orbits.

Does the Sol System only have 8 planets?

That question depends on how you define a planet.

Pluto was considered a planet until pretty recently, but has been bumpped down to the status of dwarf planet.

Then you have Ceres, Pallus Vesta (in the Asteroid belt) that could have been named as planets however hasty definitions were made upon their discovery to keep them as 'minor planets' or merely asteroids.

Then we have the new bodes found further out from Pluto

Haumea, Makemake, Eris.

Brown's list identifies four other objects as "nearly certainly" being dwarf planets:

Re: Our solar system has 8 planets; chemistry says an atom can only support 8 valence orbits.

No i'm actually talking about hard science and years and years of brilliant research conducted by men and women that you seem to not have a single clue about... no offense.

The logic here is, "Oh there are 8 planets in our solar system. Planets must behave exactly the same as electrons orbiting the nucleus!!"

If you actually took the time to read about the bohr model you will see that this hypothesis actually failed miserably and was one of the first theories that led physicists to come up with quantum mechanics (you know, the stuff that makes almost all of our modern technology work).

It's one thing to say someone is narrow minded, but it's another thing to jump to some ridiculous conclusion by noticing a mere coincidence, and dismissing a century of FACTUAL EVIDENCE.

Did you not consider that there are probably hundreds of thousands of star systems that are "stable" that have more or less than 8 planets?

Re: Our solar system has 8 planets; chemistry says an atom can only support 8 valence orbits.

These topics have been discussed alot, but quite naturally it is to my understanding that the planetary systems are the same physics as atoms.

I think they can answer alot of questions about atoms by simply taking our own solar systems calculations and physical properties and laws and applying it to the questions we have about the atomic level.

Quoting: What is close is father away 17857763

If you consider transdimensional travel, wouldnt physics, and our own perceptions of our environment, become obsolete?

It could be that our very senses are what deceive us.

And these senses are what hold us back from some serious cognitive expansion.

Why would the universe be limited by our perception of depth, space, time, and matter? It is our PERCEPTION that is a false premise we build our scientific theories upon; so wouldnt our entire approach be faulty?

We could start by going back to the drawing board, and removing perception, and every deritvative of science based upon it, from the equation.

Quoting: Anonymous Coward 6231580

Multi-dimensional perception and the time continum are not permanent, but ever changing. Therefore, basing our sciences on fixed perceptions and concepts of permanent time continums could be a faulty.

For example, precognition. Wouldnt the phenomenon of precognition in some people (the ability to see in the future: proven) be impossible in a fixed time continum?

Precognition suggests that pieces of time can be "cut, copied and pasted" in a paradigm... pushed o the future, pushed into the past, in our minds. The creator of the paradigm itself is our minds; and our minds being the creator are the limitation.

My point is that our perception of time could be wrong. Therefore, our other perceptions of space, depth, and 'existance as a displacement in the physical world' could be wrong as well.

When we die, our "perception" changes. Therefore, our perception among the living is not complete, but a figment of a greater, grand perception.

We are only getting PART of the variables, yet we base the entirety of most scientific hypothesii on the one perception of the living.

And I think this perception we hold in the flesh is not only limited, but a microcosm of REAL truth with regards to scientific realities.

Re: Our solar system has 8 planets; chemistry says an atom can only support 8 valence orbits.

No i'm actually talking about hard science and years and years of brilliant research conducted by men and women that you seem to not have a single clue about... no offense.

The logic here is, "Oh there are 8 planets in our solar system. Planets must behave exactly the same as electrons orbiting the nucleus!!"

If you actually took the time to read about the bohr model you will see that this hypothesis actually failed miserably and was one of the first theories that led physicists to come up with quantum mechanics (you know, the stuff that makes almost all of our modern technology work).

It's one thing to say someone is narrow minded, but it's another thing to jump to some ridiculous conclusion by noticing a mere coincidence, and dismissing a century of FACTUAL EVIDENCE.

Did you not consider that there are probably hundreds of thousands of star systems that are "stable" that have more or less than 8 planets?

Quoting: Anonymous Coward 2146265

Of course, these discoveries brought us this far.

But now they have become our BOUNDARY... our cognitive limitation.

It is time now to reach beyond what is regarded as fact in the world, we have to reach beyond what we think is a set in stone scientific paradigm.